• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Official OcUK Ryzen review thread

amigafan2003 said:
So to summarise, if you only game at 1080p, go for a 7700k, otherwise go Ryzen.
Click to expand...

If you game at 1080p with £800 GPU and £350 CPU, go see doctor immediately ;-).

At this res, I could play the same games reviewed on a FX8300, £50 motherboard and RX480 and they will all run just fine.

Pointless and irrelevant reviews... it's like testing superbike or race car performance by seeing which parks better on a parking lot in front of supermarket and arguing whether the one that can park in 4s or 4.4s is better.

Whoever still has 1080p monitor and anything else than 4-5year old CPU/GPU should first of all, get a better monitor.
 
The getting a better monitor rhetoric just doesn't hold.
I've got a 290x on a 2560x1080 screen.
Any higher res and the 290x just wouldn't give the frames I want.
 
Martini1991 said:
The getting a better monitor rhetoric just doesn't hold.
I've got a 290x on a 2560x1080 screen.
Any higher res and the 290x just wouldn't give the frames I want.
Click to expand...
Reviews should really be based on how many fps you normally get. This would give gamers actually useful info (no matter the res, no matter the gpu etc).

For instance:
~60fps and below, there would be no difference what CPU you use, so if you always prefer to keep your system in this range, your CPU won't matter (think about your other needs, changing platform would be just for fun, workstation etc)
60-100fps - you might see difference up to like 10% (just example) for 7700k, still not much of a difference, in gaming you might not notice that at all
>100fps - advantage for 7700k might be higher than 15% therefore if you are high fps gamer r7 is not for you.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Where the hell is the digital Foundry Ryzen review...
Click to expand...

People keep surmising that the review has been held off while bugs are fixed. Personally the review if ready should be put up. If Ryzen has problems and the review highlights them then it is something that people should be made aware of. They could easily do what others have and state a second review will be added in x number of months to show where the optimizations have made a difference.

Other reviews are all over the place where the same games are shown as better on Ryzen on one site and then better on Intel on another site.
 
ubersonic said:
TPU finally released theirs: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/
Click to expand...

Why are so many reviewers OC'ing Ryzen and not the 7700k? Seems odd

In gaming:
Fallout showing how badly it uses extra cores.

And quite a few GPU bottleneckes I would think.

As with others its behind for the most part but still a reasonable showing in its current state.

In synthetics / rendering:
Ahead on price / performance

Except Euler3d where its slightly behind.
 
PhoenixUK said:
If you game at 1080p with £800 GPU and £350 CPU, go see doctor immediately ;-).

At this res, I could play the same games reviewed on a FX8300, £50 motherboard and RX480 and they will all run just fine.

Pointless and irrelevant reviews... it's like testing superbike or race car performance by seeing which parks better on a parking lot in front of supermarket and arguing whether the one that can park in 4s or 4.4s is better.

Whoever still has 1080p monitor and anything else than 4-5year old CPU/GPU should first of all, get a better monitor.
Click to expand...

It's really not pointless. It allows for more emphasis to be put on the CPU as opposed to the gpu. It's nothing like your analogy at all. A closer analogy would be to say it's like testing either bike or car on track but with average tyres and a limiter in place. Still rubbish, however closer, as you get a reasonable idea regarding performance. It's strange how the people who are pro Ryzen seem to want the gpu limiting benchmarks at 4k. It's obviously going to perform better as people are limited by a completely different piece of hardware.
 
Drollic said:
It's really not pointless. It allows for more emphasis to be put on the CPU as opposed to the gpu. It's nothing like your analogy at all. A closer analogy would be to say it's like testing either bike or car on track but with average tyres and a limiter in place. Still rubbish, however closer, as you get a reasonable idea regarding performance. It's strange how the people who are pro Ryzen seem to want the gpu limiting benchmarks at 4k. It's obviously going to perform better as people are limited by a completely different piece of hardware.
Click to expand...

The whole argument is silly. By the time the 7% ICP difference is a factor (if it ever will be) games will be much better optimised to make use of more cores.

Moot point is moot.
 
Last edited:
haszek said:
Reviews should really be based on how many fps you normally get. This would give gamers actually useful info (no matter the res, no matter the gpu etc).

For instance:
~60fps and below, there would be no difference what CPU you use, so if you always prefer to keep your system in this range, your CPU won't matter (think about your other needs, changing platform would be just for fun, workstation etc)
60-100fps - you might see difference up to like 10% (just example) for 7700k, still not much of a difference, in gaming you might not notice that at all
>100fps - advantage for 7700k might be higher than 15% therefore if you are high fps gamer r7 is not for you.
Click to expand...

A good argument really, also probably holds true into the future as although GPU's get faster and faster, games get more demanding or we play them in higher resolution so where we want to play games fps wise is probably the most important thing.
 
Intel need to release a 8 core 16 thread version of the 7700K with a socket lifespan of 5 years. If they do that for £300 people would consider the gaming argument valid. Until then it's all meh.
 
jigger said:
The whole argument is silly. By the time the 7% ICP difference is a factor (if it ever will be) games will be much better optimised to make use of more cores.

Moot point is moot.
Click to expand...
I know that is a good chance but I heard this opinion plenty of times 5 years ago when I grabbed the 3570k over a 8350, I know the IPC is a much bigger gap over the R7 1800x vs 7700k but it's worth thinking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom